Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8013
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 771+
2-CMStP&P-MA-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of ~,~nployes:
1. That under the current agreemenc Machinist James Wells, hereinafter
referred to as the Claimant, was unjustly dismissed from service
on October 29,
1976,
and furthermore that his dismissal. is
arbitrary, capra_ci.ous and un.rarxairLed.
2. That accordingly the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, be
ordered to reinstate C1ainart with all seniority and vacation
rights unimpaired and to compensate Cla.inant for all lost wages,
including pren5.uzn .payments for hospitalization, surgical and
medical benefits, and group insurance fox all time Cla:lana:2t :is
held from work, commencing with October
29, 1976
and until he
is properly reinstated.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that;
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.,
Claimant was dismissed from the service of the Carrier for failure to
protect his assignment. Said dismissal was assessed following an investigation
which was held .pursuant to notice. The claimant first takes the position
that -the notice was not sufficient to apprise him of the precise charge
against him. Secondly, the claimant argues that since he was not charged
with a specific rule violation., the Carrier's case is fatally defective,
Finally, he argues that the discipline is excessive.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 801
Docket No.
771+
2-CMS tP&;P-MA-'
79
The notice in the instant matter was sufficient., It advised claimant
that he was being investigated for "alleged failure to protect your assignment
in that you were absent from work between the hours of
7:00
AM and 3:00 PM
on October 1,
7.,
and 23 of
1976".
There is no question as to the adequacy of
the questioned notice. Further, from such notice, the claimant knew without
reference to a rule number, exactly with what offense he was being charged.
The transcript of the proceedings reflects that substantive evidence
of .probative value was presented which will support the Carrier's finding.
We will not disturb the Carrier's finding in this regard.
The claimant argues against the dismissal. as being too harsh. Once a
finding had been made that the offense complained of vras, in fact, committed,
the Carrier acted properly in cons4_dering the claimant's past record. Given
the claimant's deplorable absenteeism and tardiness records the dismissal
was proper.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIOivTAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTP,MP?T BOARD
B;~ Order of Second Division
e~
rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at lChicago Illinois this 25th day of
July1979.
,~